Legal provisions involved: Sections 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872; Section 85 of the Evidence Act; Section 33 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Judgement by: Supreme Court of India.

Judge/Bench: Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice S. V. N. Bhatti.

Facts

The case was about joint family property. The plaintiff said that the defendant had no right to sell or deal with the property because no valid Power of Attorney was ever given to him. The defendant claimed that he had authority based on a Power of Attorney, but he produced only a notarised photocopy. The original document was never shown, and no reason was given for its absence.

Key legal provisions

Sections 63 and 65 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Section 85 of the Evidence Act.

Section 33 of the Registration Act, 1908.

Issues raised

Whether a notarised photocopy of a Power of Attorney can be accepted as proof, and whether courts can presume its validity without proper proof.

Arguments of the case

The defendant relied on the photocopy and legal presumptions. The plaintiff argued that without the original document or proper secondary evidence, no authority was proved.

Judgement

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal. It held that a notarised photocopy by itself has no value as evidence. Unless the original document is produced or the legal steps for secondary evidence are followed, such a document cannot be used to prove the right to sell property.

Click here to VIEW the full judgement.